SOMETHING there is that doesn't love a wall, That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it, And spills the upper boulders in the sun; And makes gaps even two can pass abreast. The work of hunters is another thing: I have come after them and made repair Where they have left not one stone on a stone, But they would have the rabbit out of hiding, To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean, No one has seen them made or heard them made, But at spring mending-time we find them there. I let my neighbour know beyond the hill; And on a day we meet to walk the line And set the wall between us once again. We keep the wall between us as we go. To each the boulders that have fallen to each. And some are loaves and some so nearly balls We have to use a spell to make them balance: "Stay where you are until our backs are turned!" We wear our fingers rough with handling them. Oh, just another kind of out-door game, One on a side. It comes to little more: There where it is we do not need the wall: He is all pine and I am apple orchard. My apple trees will never get across And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him. He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours." Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder If I could put a notion in his head: "Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it Where there are cows? But here there are no cows. Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offence. Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him, But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather He said it for himself. I see him there Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. He moves in darkness as it seems to me, Not of woods only and the shade of trees. He will not go behind his father's saying, And he likes having thought of it so well He says again, "Good fences make good neighbours."

To return to the cliched commentaries of parents and other childhood authority figures...

How about the times you misbehaved in school and were told that the infraction would become part of your permanent record? As if when you're forty-five and up for a big promotion the boss is going to take you aside and say something like, "John, we really like you for the job, but there's this little matter of the time you put a tack in Mary Aspinwall's chair. It's right here in your permanent record!"

Had I realized back in school that nothing you do in school matters...I suppose it wouldn't really have made that much difference come to think of it. How about the most dreaded (by children) explanation ever "because I said so" I really hate that one

Bee-dubya ; you ever live in a small town? Heck - when you're up for a job - they not only bring up stuff you did in grade school - but stuff your Daddy did in grade school - and stuff *HIS* father did...

and may the hairy little gods help you if you have any relatives that aren't up to snuff.

Yes, Layah, we do manage "silly" much of the time. And "uproariously funny" is a logical and regular outcome. To illustrate our distinction on the Mudcat scene more completely, since music is the food of love, and laughter is the best medicine, you've come to the right place.

I am awaiting the unveiling of Rapaire's GUT with bated breath. Perhaps it will explain why guitar strings sometimes break when you're loosening them. Perhaps not. Even A GUT has to leave a few questions unanswered, doesn't it? Otherwise we'd have to eliminate the "?" from our keyboards.

So that's where QED comes from (the name of the play about Feynman, which I never saw, darn) I thought it referred to that Latin phrase that was made into an acronym. But it's quantum electrodynamics.

Ok, the discussion of other dimensions in subatomic realms is interesting. It reminds me of an interesting science-fiction series I read by the late, great Charles Sheffield. The series is commonly known as _The Heritage Sereies_ and part of what goes on in it is macro quantum dynamics, as in on a grand scale, with all of the attendant bizarre chaotic and teleportation stuff.

Anyhow, I can feel Mom getting all stirred up now, so I think I'll just go off and read some more. :)

I love the Heinlein treatment of time, in which he figures out a tale which completely presents the paradoxes inherent in allowing time travel.

There is a really deep fundamental flip-flop in play here -- those who (understandably) derive metaphysics from the instinctual, body-derived sense of space and time are constantly wrestling with paradoxes such as the time issue, which goes all wonky the moment relativity gets turned on. Quantum dynamics don't make sense and fry your brain.

Those who assume that space is merely a viewpoint projected from a spiritual decision to know things dimensionally have a much easier time surfing the paradoxical nodes and all that, but they are useless when pragmatic matters come up.

Amos said: "Those who assume that space is merely a viewpoint projected from a spiritual decision to know things dimensionally have a much easier time surfing the paradoxical nodes and all that, but they are useless when pragmatic matters come up."

That's it, RR! Bullshit. It is the all-pervasive force that makes nonsense out of the sensible, sense out of the nonsensical. it is paired with Truth in some dangerous and tantalizing ways. Particles of these two great forces should not touch, or they will annihilate each other. I tried it once.

Easy to say, and to the True Practitioner, easy to produce. But what IS bullshit? Teresa, in her usual Zen way, has indicated the tantalizing truth, just beyond the Mind's ability to grasp or articulate.

True bullshit is spiritually postulated anti-fact, the created knowledge of the soul yearning for freedom, the nuclear rainbow of the mind battered overlong with spacetime. I submit it comes in grades of admixture with mere twists and distortions and semi-facts, which is a good thing, also.

Because no human mind can handle too much of the 100-proof straight stuff without blowing a sidewall and flipping into one-winged loony-bird antics all over the playground.

By the thirty-eight hands of the fourteen Holy Helpers, Bee-Dubya, I was using that as an example!!!! of a GUT!!! NOT what I am doing, which will, I am certain, explain the important stuff!!! Right now, at this very moment, the Final Experiment is chugging alone, doing exactly as the GUT predicted!! Taro root, immature extremophiles, two kinds of compost, a quart of beauty quarks, n-dimensional fictons, a pint of p-n junctions, and a lot of other stuff are stewing away in a caldera out on The Site, monitored by astute physicists and chemists and biologists and other lackeys and serfs.

Ye gods, man! Did you think I was trying to explain something as simple, as elementary, as childish, as quantum mechanics???

You do realise an important product of this research? If we finally understand BS, and its generation, we will finally have a way of understanding Congress/Parliment/appropriate national collection of troublemakers.

And if it is necesssary to put all of them through a particle accelerator, to provide experimental conformation....

Rapaire, be sure to get a good J-box (find them in the hyperbolic wiring department of Home Depot or your neighborhood Ace Hardware) to stuff all of those loose ends into or you'll burn your house down.

First, I must apologize to my brother Rapaire for my hastiness in belittling his GUT post. Little did I know that his post would provide the impetus for my own Eureka moment.

Now, as we all know, in the world of particle physics, terms like color, up/down, flavor and spin are merely analogs. They serve as convenient means by which to talk about properties that can only be truly expressed mathematically. "Spin" to a particle physicist is not the same as "spin" to a kid playing with a top. The kid with the top would have a hard time conceiving of a spin of ½. Nobody can really conceive of a spin of ½. It can only be expressed mathematically. Likewise the "colors" of quarks are merely conventions. They aren't really red, blue or green. Honest. Nor do they stand up or lie down. though I'm sure a charmed quark is, in fact, quite charming...

Now, how does all this relate to BS? Simple. The conventions of BS are also merely metaphors or analogs for underlying principles that can only be expressed mathematically. The sheep, the spatulas, the rutabagas, the mangelwurzels, freds, are merely conventions that we use to spout BS. We use them so we can communicate ideas to each other, but what we're really talking about are basic underlying mathematical concepts.

So, just as a Grand Unifying Theory in physics can only be expressed mathematically, the Grand Unifying Theory of BS must be expressed mathematically as well. But there is one major difference between the two. In physics, a GUT must be expressed in a single equation, otherwise it's not really unifying, is it? But, since BS is infinitely more complex than particle physics, the GUT of BS must be expressed in two equations!

Here they are: 2+2=3+1 and 2+2=7.

I await your applause, lauds and congratulations with bated breath. Please post congratulatory messages to this thread. Send me a private message if you would like the address to which to send money.

Now, I'm off to figure out how to trisect an angle using only a compass and straight-edge.

First, I must apologize to my brother Rapaire for my hastiness in belittling his GUT post. Little did I know that his post would provide the impetus for my own Eureka moment.

Now, as we all know, in the world of particle physics, terms like color, up/down, flavor and spin are merely analogs. They serve as convenient means by which to talk about properties that can only be truly expressed mathematically. "Spin" to a particle physicist is not the same as "spin" to a kid playing with a top. The kid with the top would have a hard time conceiving of a spin of ½. Nobody can really conceive of a spin of ½. It can only be expressed mathematically. Likewise the "colors" of quarks are merely conventions. They aren't really red, blue or green. Honest. Nor do they stand up or lie down.

Now, how does all this relate to BS? Simple. The conventions of BS are also merely metaphors or analogs for underlying principles that can only be expressed mathematically. The sheep, the spatulas, the rutabagas, the mangelwurzels, freds, are merely conventions that we use to spout BS. We use them so we can communicate ideas to each other, but what we're really talking about are basic underlying mathematical concepts.

So, just as a Grand Unifying Theory in physics can only be expressed mathematically, the Grand Unifying Theory of BS must be expressed mathematically as well. But there is one major difference between the two. In physics, a GUT must be expressed in a single equation, otherwise it's not really unifying, is it? But, since BS is infinitely more complex than particle physics, the GUT of BS must be expressed in two equations!

Here they are: 2+2=3+1 and 2+2=7.

I await your applause, lauds and congratulations with bated breath. Please post congratulatory messages to this thread. Send me a private message if you would like the address to which to send money.

Now, I'm off to figure out how to trisect an angle using only a compass and straight-edge.

Frickin' Mudcat! So I posted that message on .org and it decided to just sit and spin for two or three minutes and act like it wasn't going through. So I closed the window and came in throught the backdoor and, nope, it wasn't on the page. So I posted it again and VIOLA! The original message had somehow finally made it through cyberspace.

Maybe it was just so profound that the .org server had to mull over it a bit before posting it to the thread. But, hey, it's a great message. It deserves to be posted twice.

That's easy in this new realm you have unleashed, BeeDubya. 3*7= 21, as we all know, and 21/7=3. So if 2x2=7 then dividing the triangle into four equal parts three times, easy to do with a compass and straightedge, will enable you to combine it into thirds. QED!!!

I see your point, Amos. Alternatively, one could trisect an angle by merely bisecting it twice, yielding four equal angles, and then telling one of them to get lost. That would leave a vacuum within the original angle which, since nature abhors a vacuum, would cause the remaining three angles to swell equally, resulting in true trisection.

is evident from the foregoing discussion, the Bson becomes reductable only at temperatures -n° K. Since by our definition 0° K would mean that all Bson activity ceases, it becomes impossible for the Bson to reduct at any “time” or, because of the Law of Interdimensional Mass/Space/Time/Energy BS Conservation (discussed and proven at 3.4.2.1, above) any “where.” Ergo, when Einstein stated that “God does not play dice with the Universe” he was, as both Dirac and Heisenberg have shown, both correct and incorrect.

Yes. As you can clearly see, BS not only pervades, but is, “Life, the Universe, and Everything.” As I have demonstrated, not only is BS the single unifying factor that provides the cement, it is the factor itself, holding itself together, per omnia saecula saeculorum.